Author
Topic: Anything shot with a 6D (Read 612412 times)

Further to Dustins's comments about the outer focus points. I love my 6D but I now have a clearer awareness of the shortcomings of the AF.

Thinking about what Canon did to handicap 6D shooters disappoints me. It seems to me a significant number of shots in vertical orientation will involve a live subject that is tall that you are trying to fill the frame with. Maybe a person with focus on the eyes or my sapsucker in a similar situation. The outer focus point gets more easily confused and if the subject is moving then there isn't always time to recompose using the center point, which is superb. Why couldn't they have made just the far right and the upper point double cross - seems a no-brainer to me??

As others have said, the 6D and wildlife leaves one just a little disappointed, more so because the camera is otherwise such a treat. Still, no regrets because the near future will have what I'm looking for (hopefully) and the 6D will be my second body.

Jack

I've yet to have any problems with servo tracking using the outer AF points on the 6D, even in low light with an f/4 lens (usually this is people walking around, or slow moving wildlife...not birds in flight). As for wildlife specifically on any of my telephoto lenses, I mostly use the center point.

As I have mentioned in the other thread, I don't see Canon as "handicapping" the 6D's autofocus. They simply did not want to use the 7D's sensor (it is aging and needs more processing power than they wanted to include with the 6D). So instead they came up with a new one, or at least a new variation of the old one used in the 5D2. It works as good or better than the 5D2's, especially the center point.

Canon certainly was not going to give the 6D a more sophisticated AF sensor, and keep the price where they wanted it. If it did have a better sensor, it also certainly would have impacted, if not killed sales of the 5D3. But to offer the 6D with that mythical AF sensor that some of you think you need, would have meant the price for the 6D body would have been too similar to the 5D3's price anyway. It would not have been able to compete with the Nikon D600 as easily, because its price would have been higher (rather than lower in most of the world). It would not be a product that fills a price point within the product line.

Therefore it was never going to happen. To complain about the AF ability of the 6D is silly. It works fine, if you take the time to try to use it correctly.

Jack, you need to lend me that 300 ii for a few weeks, because I think you are too disappointed, and we can't have that!

"Toodamnice", nice shots for sure...however...not trying to nitpick, but you simply must get rid of some of that aqua blue cast to the sky. I've done many sky shots, and have found it's always better to correct that a bit. What happens is that hue gets over saturated, the tones fall flat, and look less natural, especially if you add any saturation, or worse, vibrance. Even if you haven't added any, it still needs correcting.

This blue cast was especially bad with shots done with my Sigma DP2, because it had a bit of a color shift towards the corners anyway. With any of my Canon cameras, they didn't have the color shift toward the corners, but the sky can still turn that shade of deep "blue jeans" blue-greenish color.

My two cents...

Thanks for the advice CarlTN. I will try that and see how the pictures turn out. I know that with a lot of storms that aqua color can come from the rain/hail core and is natural. However the core is not visible in these shots.

Indeed. There can be a beautiful aqua color, even in blue sky with little or no clouds, usually near sunset or sunrise. The most beautiful aqua color I have seen, was on the bottom half of a giant thunder cloud, with sunset behind me, and cloud in front and above.

It's just that I have done similar shots as those you posted (mine were not of lightning though), and found this "deep dark aqua" color to not represent what was shot, as I saw it. Lightning itself, certainly can be very pink, and that part of your shot looks very natural. Sometimes lightning can appear blue, as with the "snow hurricane-esque" super storm of March 1993, which provided a "once in 100 years" snowfall here in southeast Tennessee...22 inches over about a two hour period! I was not out in that taking pictures, that's for sure! Just from the lightning shining in the windows that night, it was eerily blue. I suppose the snow or ice affected the color.

I have been really liking my 6d...it's odd, comparing to my mk3, there are some times where the colors fro mthe 6d pop a lot more than the mk3. And other times where the mk3 shines...I have been using them in tandem and having a lot of fun!

I have been really liking my 6d...it's odd, comparing to my mk3, there are some times where the colors fro mthe 6d pop a lot more than the mk3. And other times where the mk3 shines...I have been using them in tandem and having a lot of fun!

6d, 50mm lens at f8, 1/125, and 2 430 ex's to camera right

I hate happy couples, but that's a nice shot!

I know what i do isn't everyones cup of tea, but, I see mostly landscapes and macro work here. As someone who was greatly interested in how the 6d would stand up to shooting both people and weddings seeing more portrait work would have been awesome. So, I post my portrait work here, that way others on the fence and wondering may see!

I have been really liking my 6d...it's odd, comparing to my mk3, there are some times where the colors fro mthe 6d pop a lot more than the mk3. And other times where the mk3 shines...I have been using them in tandem and having a lot of fun!

6d, 50mm lens at f8, 1/125, and 2 430 ex's to camera right

I hate happy couples, but that's a nice shot!

I know what i do isn't everyones cup of tea, but, I see mostly landscapes and macro work here. As someone who was greatly interested in how the 6d would stand up to shooting both people and weddings seeing more portrait work would have been awesome. So, I post my portrait work here, that way others on the fence and wondering may see!

First is a mix of both portrait/landscape!

then a few wedding images

Nice shots! I'm just jealous I can't marry all those women. I'm in dire need of love and being nagged to death by a myriad of wives!

I wish I could make as much money from my photography as wedding shooters do, that's for sure.

I have been really liking my 6d...it's odd, comparing to my mk3, there are some times where the colors fro mthe 6d pop a lot more than the mk3. And other times where the mk3 shines...I have been using them in tandem and having a lot of fun!

6d, 50mm lens at f8, 1/125, and 2 430 ex's to camera right

I hate happy couples, but that's a nice shot!

I know what i do isn't everyones cup of tea, but, I see mostly landscapes and macro work here. As someone who was greatly interested in how the 6d would stand up to shooting both people and weddings seeing more portrait work would have been awesome. So, I post my portrait work here, that way others on the fence and wondering may see!

First is a mix of both portrait/landscape!

then a few wedding images

Nice shots! I'm just jealous I can't marry all those women. I'm in dire need of love and being nagged to death by a myriad of wives!

I wish I could make as much money from my photography as wedding shooters do, that's for sure.

TY Man, but ---- doing this kind of work isn't the big cash grab you may think, at least not for everyone. This is only my second season shooting weddings. Established weddings togs do make a decent living, but thats the key...established! Last year I shot 6 weddings as primary shooter -- 2 of them in the 2k range, the other 4 sub 1k (basically ceremony only), and i shot 12 as 2nd shooter This year I have 4 in the 2k range, and 7 below 1.5k. So far 3 second shooter gigs. Next year i should have more full coverage weddings and less second shooting. But to really be making it with weddings you need to be doing 25-30 weddings at 2k at least, and that goal is probably at least 2-3 years off.